I feel the playerbase deserves compensation for this. At least a proper -free- x2 or +100% exp boost for an upcoming weekend. The fact that the 50% was intended doesn’t make up for the fact that the announcement wasn’t made as intended.
4 Likes
No at this point you’re not defending them, you swallow everything from IMC.
They still didn’t remove the image with double xp right ? It’s so simple to remove it and replace it with +50%, so they’re still lying.
Edit : I mean, there’s still something wrong. When your intention is to put the bonus xp at 50% you use your brain and don’t copy past the +100% event post…
1 Like
Lie is something did that way intended. If it’s a miscommunication it isn’t intended.
I agree that it’s a bad thing but you’re essentially calling an error a lie, which contradicts your own arguments.
And IMC apologized and said the intended was 50%, who made the announcement cannot change how the event designed, no matter how much you complain.
I don’t care about how you’re frustrated about it. But no one’s going to disrespect their superior departments to be fired just because someone’s crying:
About this: “IMC repeat events all the weeks.”
And this: “IMC put a different event now and I want the event from previous week instead of this one.”
Also, no matter how much you complain, it doesn’t change the fact that the 50% is the intended on code and designed that way for the event.
Want more proof? Sure, here.
It’s 50% on the client-side buff description files updated by devs on the .IPF since last maintenance on Tuesday.
And the buff that was added along with the very same Kupole update:
It’s an announcement error, unintentional, not a lie.
Devs made it that way since the start. Deal with it.
Using logic and facts = defending IMC.
I’ll never understand the reason behind it.
I actually think the “lie” would be worse due to the intentional factor.
IMC needs to improve A LOT. Especially in communication with us and on the small details.
But on the other hand, as much as we think they might have much money, it’s a common saying they’re understaffed. If you’re actually putting someone busy to do work outside of they range, things will go bad one time or another. They still could do better though.
There are various reasons (based on the IMC flaws themselves) that makes more sense than lies.
For example, I see ToS quality/testing as something like this:
-> Get intended step by step test procedure and possible variations.
-> Reproduce them and report inconsistencies with the spec.
They don’t play the game, I don’t think they pay too much attention to other details other than what’s on the spec.
Actually, think on the people you know that plays the game casually but aren’t too much of gamers, how many of non-gamers people would actually do a great game debugging/quality/testing job? Fun fact: If they’re great at it, they’re probably working with something else better by now.
Let’s say a miscommunication happened somewhere, the quality/testing approved the spec and the entire spec went along with the announcement details that was copy-pasted even before it reached the STAFF who published the announcement.
If your job is to actually publish announcement in english from korean and the quality/testing approved the specs and event, why would you actually double double check the information that’s supposed to come to your hands in a perfect state because your main job in this chain is the kr->en translation?
This is one of the many ways things could go wrong. They have A LOT to improve.
But given their position, I’m pretty sure they’re not going to act like jerks. I think they will use this bad event to add to what they should get better on, at least on the STAFF side that communicates with us.
“Coded as 50”
- The Person that wrote the event (the idea was DOUBLE exp weekend, henced they reused the double EXP page as well)
- However, the was code written as 50%.
- Naturally, those that copied the double exp event, didn’t even bother reading the code nor to double check it, so proceeded with the plan.
- They fcked up. Now, saying 50% was intended because they can no longer change it to 100%.
#4 is the part where they lied, not the whole thing, you don’t seem to get it.
Even the copy paste part proves that the event was meant to be 100%. No one is dumb enough to copy the whole double event thing AND WRITE the kupole mechanics as double.
Deal with it? Sure.
Affirmative Claim = Burden of Proof.
Claim + No Proof = Ignored.
50% is the first information known and able to be validated in the chain.
Because not everyone is a programmer. This should be obvious.
Affirmative Claim = Burden of Proof.
Claim + No Proof = Ignored.
I don’t see to get it because you have 0 things supporting your affirmative claim.
I’ve given you my proof that matches with the first known and able to be validated information that 50% was defined in the chain before the announcement was made.
The fact that the 50% was defined before in the chain makes it clear for me that the announcement, which is later in the chain, should follow that. It makes no sense for the code, which is developed first, to be based on the announcement, which is made later.
My proofs? Check my post above, there’s screenshots of the IPF pushed into ToS patcher files.
Now may you present any single proof that supports your claim so we can continue to have a proper discussion?
My proof itself is the event page.
1 - Headline
2 - Picture
3 - Content
4 - Important Part
5 - Kupole Mechanics
They even edited the kupole mechanics after the event started to hide themselves from embarrassment.
The whole thing, even the new part (Kupole) was meant to be double prior to edit.
I’m asking proof for this, you still didn’t provide anything.
We both agree on the fact that 50% was part of what’s coded and that’s the earliest known part of the chain.
This is enough reason for 50% to be the intended.
So, may you present any single proof of your claim about the event design that supports your claim so we can continue to have a proper discussion?
And, no, an announcement isn’t the event design spec.
Nah, they didn’t edit the Kupole mechanics at all, the last pushed files were 5 days ago, in the maintenance:
There’s no changes after this.
If you can’t accept that, nothing we could do about it.
But the fact that they reused a double exp page was already enough that double was intended.
The edit I was talking about was on the Page. Even you missed it a few posts ago.
If you can’t accept the code proof. There’s nothing I can do about it.
Nothing changes the fact that 50% is the earliest known value in the chain and probably is the intended value.
If you can provide any proof that shows anything different in earlier steps, we can continue discussing, otherwise it’s just your opinion against facts. 
Which is correct for you? Something that happened and can be proved or your opinion alone?
Logical fallacy. Try again.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/cause.html
I only missed the first page, which you didn’t notice as well until you double checked and sent the image on the thread.
They edited and apologized about it and said the 50% was the intended.
That’s a fact, they said it was intended in a public page, fixing the announcement error. Fact which matches with the earliest known 50% value present in game files since last maintenance.
The page happened and can be proved, with the fact that it was edited after the event started.
Code proof could be very well be a miscommunication with what was planned which was double EXP.
Quite simple tbh.
Yeah, the announcement error happened. The page was edited in Saturday, after the issue was noticed and reported to be wrong.
Or code could be very well the correct, based on event specs, and the announcement the only error.
Quite simple tbh.
Especially when the code has the earliest known EXP value for the event which is 50%.
For example, I agree with this article: https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/problems-long-chain-command-17294.html
The likelihood of miscommunication increases as a company adds more levels of management.
The code step happening earlier than the announcement makes it more likely that the miscommunication happened later, which means, more likely that the announcement is wrong, not the code - meaning that 50% is most likely the correct and intended, based on the code.
Which shows it’s simply an error that was fixed and then they apologized about it.
It’s not like I directly wanted to blame whoever posted this announcement, but IMC in general. I’m not here to point fingers at Ines in particular.
Whether it’s the ones who tested, the ones who first wrote the original description (in Korean or not), the ones who translated, the ones who are supposed to double-check… It doesn’t concern me or anybody else who exactly messed up, truthfully. The fact is that they did mess up, and even if it’s only one person who did, it affects their whole image. In the end, it doesn’t matter who messed up, and why.
The main point is that they didn’t fully modify the announcement, they didn’t make an official announcement “By the way, it was actually supposed to be +50% and not +100%, there were some misunderstandings, sorry” (ninja updates are the worst), didn’t explain the Talts issue, and haven’t tried to apologize by making it +100% or extending it, which is actually how you apologize when you work in retail/customer services.
And why would you double check ? To make sure there isn’t a mistake~
Normally they’re supposed to communicate with each other to make sure this kind of newbie mistakes don’t happen. It’s some of the people’s jobs, there, to double check that the information is correct.
There’s also someone who decided “Let’s make a double/50% EXP event”, so they should have checked it too, or whoever was responsible of it. It’s an modified original event, which should have been reported to the other departments.
At best, this kind of mistake is a big lack of organization.
I’m sorry, but that’s not how translating works 
Unless it’s something purely technical, a translator normally never works without the base material or they might mess it up. You need to know what you’re talking about because different languages mean different phrasing, so you can lose some meaning if you fail to do it.
If you don’t have the context, “X being mad” can mean they’re crazy or angry. “Hai” in Japanese can be translated to “Yes”, even though in this context it meant “Here” (<-- actual example from an official, published manga), and so on.
It’s not a translating issue here anyway, since it was a copy-paste.
The announcement was made that way because it was planned to be that way…
Large miscommunication with the dev made it.
The page itself was also reused, but the kupole was implemented as 50%.
See how the page itself was written as double.
Now they apologized because it was intended. 50%. Double. Intended.
The event was coded the 50% way because it was planned to be that way…
Large miscommunication with the person that published it.
Exactly, the Kupole was implemented as 50%, the page showed the wrong picture.
They apologized because the implementation was intended. lol
I agree with you. The main thing I’m complaining is: We should complain about a mistake that happened. No matter who did it.
But we shouldn’t increase that mistake or say it was intentional. This is the only reason I’m participating in this huge useless discussion lol
But about this… I meant something different.
If you have a quality/testing department that gives you a check list:
A) Tested. Working according to specs.
B) Tested. Working according to specs.
C) Tested. Working according to specs.
…
J) Tested. Working according to specs.
Are you really going to, alone as someone without coding experience, to double check the code, to double check all cases passed to QA, to double check the entire spec, then publish the announcement?
Sorry but, you’re not a person responsible for translation and announcements anymore. You’re the project manager or some sort of job that controls the entire process.
Of course you should validate the data you receive and the data you pass forward.
It’s like working on a production site, you’re not going all the way to stop the production process to measure a piece by yourself to confirm the document with complete measurements that’s on your hands, signed by the responsible person of the department that did all the measurements, with many people, tools and trained to so.
It’s almost impossible to get things done while having every piece of the chain doing recursive validation of every single previous steps.
Of course the piece measurement could be wrong, the machines could be failing, something else might have failed.
In the same way you should do your best to make sure your work is the best you can do from the part you receive the data to the part you deliver the data away, you gotta have limits so you can actually get your job done and expect to receive at least decent/correct data from the previous part of the chain.
Pretty much, we don’t really know where.
But it’s far from being a lie or an intentional thing ‘-’
But what I meant was:
You get a form filled with:
A) Ok, tested, according to specs.
B) Ok, tested, according to specs.
C) Ok, tested, according to specs.
Event announcement:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua…
As translator are you going to double check the QA job thoroughly? Are you even going to have access to codebase as a translator?
I’m not sure if we’re on the same page (if you meant something different). But this is what I meant, sorry if it was confusing >_<
Just uninstalled the game
blok, goblok , developer ramutu, jancok asu, penipuan customer cok, matane asu, to baad for sue this company need fly to korea
Like I said, everything was wrong, due to miscommunication.
Did you know what happened outside of what’s written? Naturally you’re going to publish that crap you’ve planned. Double page was reused and copied already, as well as kupole mechanics written.
Now, if that wasn’t the plan or double wasn’t intended, they can re-edit the page right away before the event actually started. It was there written fresh in addition to re using the page.
They forgot? That’s an even bigger problem. They didn’t know? Oh they knew. Miscommunication. What’s intended? To me it’s 100, to you, it’s 50. To them? We don’t know. But for all means, everything was exactly written as double from the page itself. Saying it’s 50% right away no matter what backend proof you show won’t matter, because everything was advertised as 100%/double.
Yeah, it was an error but it stops at that.
The issue is an wrong announcement, copy-pasted from previous week. It was announced like X but the implemented event is Y. Nothing more, the issue ends here.
Someone messed up somewhere, they apologized about it and updated the announcement to match Y, as intended.
What’s so hard to understand about this?
Because that’s your view.
My view is that they fcked up on what’s supposed to be double exp and cannot change it back to 100% because devs implemented it as 50%.
What’s so hard to understand about this?
We have different views on what’s happening, you are actually forcing me to believe you since you replied, I’m not forcing anyone to believe me, but apparently a bunch of people think the same way without having me to convince anything at all, because it really looks that way just from the event page itself.
If devs implemented 50% someone said to them to type 50%.
Who pass the information to devs? The event design.
Why? If there’s something that can’t be implemented it will go back to event design and changed.
The announcement only comes later. It doesn’t change the specs sent to be coded.
What’s so hard to understand about this?